Use u_i, sigma_i for Eqs 10 and 11, and other edits.

git-svn-id: svn+ssh://svn.code.sf.net/p/wsjt/wsjt/branches/wsjtx@6360 ab8295b8-cf94-4d9e-aec4-7959e3be5d79
This commit is contained in:
Joe Taylor 2016-01-06 19:04:42 +00:00
parent cf5f3916c7
commit 20381b971a

View File

@ -849,7 +849,7 @@ The FT algorithm uses quality indices made available by a noncoherent 64-FSK
\end_inset
of the symbol's fractional power
\begin_inset Formula $p_{1,\, j}$
\begin_inset Formula $p_{1,\,j}$
\end_inset
in a sorted list of
@ -919,7 +919,7 @@ t educated guesses to select symbols for erasure.
, the soft distance between the received word and the codeword:
\begin_inset Formula
\begin{equation}
d_{s}=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\alpha_{j}\,(1+p_{1,\, j}).\label{eq:soft_distance}
d_{s}=\sum_{j=1}^{n}\alpha_{j}\,(1+p_{1,\,j}).\label{eq:soft_distance}
\end{equation}
\end_inset
@ -937,7 +937,7 @@ Here
\end_inset
if the received symbol and codeword symbol are different, and
\begin_inset Formula $p_{1,\, j}$
\begin_inset Formula $p_{1,\,j}$
\end_inset
is the fractional power associated with received symbol
@ -981,7 +981,7 @@ In practice we find that
\begin_layout Standard
\begin_inset Formula
\begin{equation}
u=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}S(c_{j},\, j).\label{eq:u-metric}
u=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{j=1}^{n}S(c_{j},\,j).\label{eq:u-metric}
\end{equation}
\end_inset
@ -1010,7 +1010,7 @@ Here the
bins containing noise only.
Thus, if the spectral array
\begin_inset Formula $S(i,\, j)$
\begin_inset Formula $S(i,\,j)$
\end_inset
has been normalized so that the average value of the noise-only bins is
@ -1051,17 +1051,39 @@ where
\end_inset
In contrast, worst-case incorrect codewords will yield
\end_layout
\begin_layout Standard
In contrast, the expected value and standard deviation of the
\begin_inset Formula $u$
\end_inset
-metrics with expectation value and standard deviation given by
-metric for a randomly selected incorrect codeword (selected from a population
of all
\begin_inset Quotes eld
\end_inset
worst case
\begin_inset Quotes erd
\end_inset
codewords,
\emph on
i.e.
\emph default
, those with
\begin_inset Formula $k-1$
\end_inset
symbols identical to corresponding ones in the correct word) are given
by
\end_layout
\begin_layout Standard
\begin_inset Formula
\begin{equation}
\bar{u}_{2}=1+\left(\frac{k-1}{n}\right)y,\label{eq:u2-exp}
\bar{u}_{i}=1+\left(\frac{k-1}{n}\right)y,\label{eq:u2-exp}
\end{equation}
\end_inset
@ -1072,39 +1094,72 @@ In contrast, worst-case incorrect codewords will yield
\begin_layout Standard
\begin_inset Formula
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{2}=\frac{1}{n}\left[n+2y(k-1)\right]^{1/2}.\label{eq:sigma2}
\sigma_{i}=\frac{1}{n}\left[n+2y(k-1)\right]^{1/2}.\label{eq:sigma2}
\end{equation}
\end_inset
If
\begin_inset Formula $u$
\end_inset
\end_layout
\begin_layout Standard
If tests on a number of tested candidate codewords yield largest and second-larg
est metrics
is evaluated for a large number of candidate codewords, one of which is
correct, we should expect the largest value
\begin_inset Formula $u_{1}$
\end_inset
to be drawn from a population with statistics described by
\begin_inset Formula $\bar{u}_{1}$
\end_inset
and
\begin_inset Formula $u_{2},$
\begin_inset Formula $\sigma_{1}.$
\end_inset
respectively, we expect the ratio
\begin_inset Formula $r=u_{2}/u_{1}$
\end_inset
to be significantly smaller in cases where the candidate associated with
If no tested codeword is correct,
\begin_inset Formula $u_{1}$
\end_inset
is in fact the correct codeword.
On the other hand, if none of the tested candidates is correct,
\begin_inset Formula $r$
is likely to come from the
\begin_inset Formula $(\bar{u}_{i},\,\sigma_{i})$
\end_inset
population and to be several standard deviations above the mean.
In either case the second-largest value,
\begin_inset Formula $u_{2},$
\end_inset
will likely come from the
\begin_inset Formula $(\bar{u}_{i},\,\sigma_{i})$
\end_inset
population, again several standard deviations above the mean.
\end_layout
\begin_layout Standard
If no tested codeword is correct or the signal-to-noise ratio
\begin_inset Formula $y$
\end_inset
is too small for decoding to be possible, the ratio
\begin_inset Formula $r=u_{2}/u_{1}$
\end_inset
will likely be close to 1.
On the other hand, correctly identified codewords will produce
\begin_inset Formula $u_{1}$
\end_inset
significantly larger than
\begin_inset Formula $u_{2}$
\end_inset
and thus smaller values of
\begin_inset Formula $r$
\end_inset
.
We therefore apply a ratio threshold test, say
\begin_inset Formula $r<r_{1}$
\end_inset
@ -1203,7 +1258,7 @@ For each received symbol, define the erasure probability as 1.3 times the
a priori
\emph default
symbol-error probability determined from soft-symbol information
\begin_inset Formula $\{p_{1}\textrm{-rank},\, p_{2}/p_{1}\}$
\begin_inset Formula $\{p_{1}\textrm{-rank},\,p_{2}/p_{1}\}$
\end_inset
.